House passes anti-net neutrality resolution, veto likely

The House of Representatives has taken procedural steps towards a resolution …

Update: an earlier version of this post incorrectly stated that the joint resolution had passed; in reality, it's only the rules for that resolution that have passed.

The House of Representatives has approved procedures for passing H.J. Res 37 (PDF), a joint resolution that, if enacted by Congress and signed by the president, would undo the Federal Communications Commission's net neutrality rules, enacted in December. The bill reads as follows:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission relating to the matter of preserving the open Internet and broadband industry practices (Report and Order FCC 10-201, adopted by the Commission on December 21, 2010), and such rule shall have no force or effect.

If H.J. Res 37 is passed, it will go to the Senate, which the Democrats still control, and where the resolution's chances are unclear. One Democrat at the subcommittee hearing predicted that the Senate won't consider it. As for the White House, yesterday President Obama issued a statement on the resolution, warning of a veto.

"The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.J. Res. 37, which would undermine a fundamental part of the Nation’s Internet and innovation strategy—an enforceable and effective policy for keeping the Internet free and open," the White House insists. "Disapproval of the rule would threaten those values and raise questions as to whether innovation on the Internet will be allowed to flourish, consumers will be protected from abuses, and the democratic spirit of the Internet will remain intact.

"If the President is presented with a Resolution of Disapproval that would not safeguard the free and open Internet, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the Resolution," the statement concludes.

I agree, Boskone, but just because they've done all the other bad things doesn't mean vetoing this is a bad idea.

Just because the House of Republicans passed it doesn't mean Obama will see it. I'm sure Joe Biden (D, RIAA) will be pondering with his "advisers" whether it is worth passing to his reelection campaign.

I feel like right now the house is doing nothing other than trying to completely backpedal on progress made in the last few years. Have there been any bills passed that address new issues?

It also scares me considering how many news stories are popping up showing the NEED for net neutrality these people can still be completely blindsided / bought off to ignore it. On the plus side, my sister (a complete non-techie) is actually becoming aware of the issue.....so keep up the reporting ars, half the battle is educating the people!

Seems somewhat hypocritical to recommend a veto of the anti-net-neutrality bill, but support so many other restrictive laws (IP law, anyone? Or his fairly rabid anti-2A stance).

Just getting that in before the inevitable "OMFG, conservatives suck!" dogpile. Like the Democrats are any better.

IP laws have been in existence since the very beginning of the United States. Both parties are pro-IP, most people who create things (and generate wealth for this nation with their creativity and provide jobs for people who don't/can't) will understand the importance of IP laws. Obama is as pro-2nd Amendment as a liberal democrat can be; he has not attempted to pass any sort of gun-control legislation.

And yes, OMFG conservatives do indeed suck. And yes Democrats are way better.

Sadly, politicians spend so much time trying to impress the people that they forget to actually do things for the people. They all just take the bribes and kickbacks and get bridges named after them because they brought home the pork.

Works for me, didn't you pay extra for the premium HD Internet package with priority packet delivery?

LOL!! EXACTLY! That was as perfect a response as one could hope for! These corporate thieves are awful for trying to mess up the internet experience. We are already rated very poorly in the international broadband scene. We pay more for slower speeds here. And we INVENTED the internet! DARPA-net! There is no excuse for this little fun fact. Only a reason. Greed.

Seems somewhat hypocritical to recommend a veto of the anti-net-neutrality bill, but support so many other restrictive laws (IP law, anyone? Or his fairly rabid anti-2A stance).

Just getting that in before the inevitable "OMFG, conservatives suck!" dogpile. Like the Democrats are any better.

IP laws have been in existence since the very beginning of the United States. Both parties are pro-IP, most people who create things (and generate wealth for this nation with their creativity and provide jobs for people who don't/can't) will understand the importance of IP laws. Obama is as pro-2nd Amendment as a liberal democrat can be; he has not attempted to pass any sort of gun-control legislation.

And yes, OMFG conservatives do indeed suck. And yes Democrats are way better.

Actually the real answer is, while IP and NN laws both stand in your way of watching Lost on the Internet when and how you want, copyright (edit, don't post in a hurry) and internet access are far enough apart that it is a bit of a stretch to call that hypocrisy. Not that I like either the Republican stance on NN or the Democratic stance on IP. Actually I dislike them both.

What is going wrong here is you are both not "Keeping your eyes on the prize". The prize isn't a D or an R after the name of the President, it is a set of laws that won't allow a strangle hold by entrenched interests. In other words, if something sucks, just say it sucks.

The easy answer is fear-mongering/FUD. The real answer is Fox News. They are too uneducated or ignorant of the facts to recognize the lies, spin, hypocrisy and propaganda, and too trusting to believe republican politicians, the corporations who own them, and a "news" organization that looks pretty professional would so transparently try to dupe them. The bigger the lie...

Also assaulting the poor and the elderly.Ryancare anyone ????Why do poor and middle class vote for Republicans ?Democrats in front,the lobbyist in middle and the republican in the rear.that's how you connect the dots

No to Ryancare, but YES to Libertarian care- nothing unless you pay for it.No to raising taxes. No to increasing the size of our bloated government. No to ISPs doing anything but making the internet go at the speed you pay for.Yes to lowering politician wages to minimum wage with expenses paid. Yes to the best education in the World if you want it. Yes to smaller government. Yes to more than the two parties of Dumbos and Retardos. Yes to flat taxation for all. Yes to fair and transparent government and courts. Yes to saving for your own future. YES to Ars Technica!

Works for me, didn't you pay extra for the premium HD Internet package with priority packet delivery?

LOL!! EXACTLY! That was as perfect a response as one could hope for! These corporate thieves are awful for trying to mess up the internet experience. We are already rated very poorly in the international broadband scene. We pay more for slower speeds here. And we INVENTED the internet! DARPA-net! There is no excuse for this little fun fact. Only a reason. Greed.

IP laws have been in existence since the very beginning of the United States. Both parties are pro-IP, most people who create things (and generate wealth for this nation with their creativity and provide jobs for people who don't/can't) will understand the importance of IP laws.

This is only partly true, and very misleading.

When Thomas Jefferson was the US patent commissioner - incidentally, he opposed patents - he would reject patents on the slightest excuse. The number of patents granted each year tripled after he resigned, but can we say that this was because Americans suddenly became three times more inventive? Certainly not. Since the 1980s the originality hurdle for patents has been significantly lowered in the US. Patents have been granted for very obvious things, like Amazon's one-click internet shopping, and sealed crustless sandwiches. This isn't, however, simply an issue of a lack of testing for novelty and non-obviousness.

It is not, as you say, that those interested creating a strong economy "understand the importance of IP laws." There are many economists who have felt that, in many fields, innovation, and the resulting temporary monopoly, advantages the innovator sufficiently to not require patents. Natural advantages that an innovator might have are reputational advantage, imitation lag, or a head start in racing down the learning curve. In the 19th century the British free-market magazine, The Economist, objected to the patent system on the grounds that that its costs would be higher than its benefits. In many cases IP laws simply encourage firms to invest in maintaining monopoly rents, and whatever litigation results can cost society in a number of ways. In the worst case, IP directly discourages innovation, because of the limits it puts on information sharing.

In the case of international trade, IP laws - in the form of trade agreements - seriously disadvantage developing countries. A strong IP regime may increase the incentive to conduct research, but there will be no one to take advantage of it, because developing countries rarely have strong public or private institutions with the ability to fund research.

It's worth noting that every advanced economic power has stolen trade secrets and technology in their younger days as an underdog. The foundation of economic development is the acquisition of more productive knowledge, and countries that are closed off from information, or restricted in their application of information, will have great difficulty developing robust economies.

There are often better ways to encourage creativity and innovation than through intellectual property. For instance, publicly funded clinical trials would cost much less than what we currently pay to big pharma as a result of patents. If you want to see proposals along these lines, I know Dean Baker at the Center for Economic and Policy research has made some. Joseph Stiglitz has also made similar suggestions, such as creating a public fund that would guarantee purchase of valuable inventions.

No to Ryancare, but YES to Libertarian care- nothing unless you pay for it.

Ok, but first can we have "No to corporate-fascist policies that impoverish the population and destroy the middle class for the benefit of the super-rich," so that we might actually have a chance to pay for it?

Quote:

No to raising taxes.

Can I at least get a "Yes to possibly maybe getting mammoth corporations to pay their share of taxes like the rest of us, especially since they insist on being given the rights of persons"?

Also assaulting the poor and the elderly.Ryancare anyone ????Why do poor and middle class vote for Republicans ?Democrats in front,the lobbyist in middle and the republican in the rear.that's how you connect the dots

No to Ryancare, but YES to Libertarian care- nothing unless you pay for it.No to raising taxes. No to increasing the size of our bloated government. No to ISPs doing anything but making the internet go at the speed you pay for.Yes to lowering politician wages to minimum wage with expenses paid. Yes to the best education in the World if you want it. Yes to smaller government. Yes to more than the two parties of Dumbos and Retardos. Yes to flat taxation for all. Yes to fair and transparent government and courts. Yes to saving for your own future. YES to Ars Technica!

What's with this "big government" garbage? The US has one of the smallest governments in proportion to their size in the developed world.

I have find your comment on education quite funny. I think what you really mean, is if you can afford it (aka, impoverished children get a subpar education)

Lowering politicians wage that low would further reduce the quality of the persons who enter the field. Anyone with a good skillset would go into a different field where they can actually make a living.

Fox has succeeded in brainwashing its viewers into believing that everything the government touches, it ruins.

Sadly, I'm inclined to agree, but in the opposite direction. Everything the government touches on the behalf of lobbyists, it destroys. Since Fox's party is the party of lobbyists - Fox destroys. That being said, the Democrats are the party of lawyers, and you know what Shakespeare said about lawyers...

The current political goal is to destroy the public education system. When they are successful (and they will be), only children of the very rich will be able to get an education. Positing that one needs an education (or a law degree) to become very rich, the circle becomes closed. The rich get richer, everyone else works in the factories of the rich. Sounds good to me, right?

The house republicans are working real hard to make sure we know they are dicks, and that they don't care about the american people in any way, shape or form but only about big businesses and their lobbyist's money.

Good god, if they could legislate against unicorns and the tooth fairy for profit they would do it, no questions asked.

Can't wait for the next election when the high tide will take back the garbage it left over the last time...

OH NO! The FCC needs this POWER so they can eventually shut out the site they don't like!

It's called NEO-IP LAW and it's coming down in a big way! ...As soon as the FCC has the power. BAM! Bye bye "free" internet. Anyone that seriously thinks the FCC's power to make rules are going to help anybody on the internet, is just plain ignorent! WAKE UP!

I think that the Republicans should change their name to the Money Party, because if one of their friends can't make a profit from it, it wouldn't exist. They would destroy National Parks because the parks interfered with some crooked friend from exploiting them. They would ban PBS because Fox wasn't making a profit from it. You get my meaning.

I think that the Republicans should change their name to the Money Party, because if one of their friends can't make a profit from it, it wouldn't exist. They would destroy National Parks because the parks interfered with some crooked friend from exploiting them. They would ban PBS because Fox wasn't making a profit from it. You get my meaning.

Just follow the Australian liberal party(christian conservatives) and allow shooting in National parks.

Also assaulting the poor and the elderly.Ryancare anyone ????Why do poor and middle class vote for Republicans ?Democrats in front,the lobbyist in middle and the republican in the rear.that's how you connect the dots

No to Ryancare, but YES to Libertarian care- nothing unless you pay for it.No to raising taxes. No to increasing the size of our bloated government. No to ISPs doing anything but making the internet go at the speed you pay for.Yes to lowering politician wages to minimum wage with expenses paid. Yes to the best education in the World if you want it. Yes to smaller government. Yes to more than the two parties of Dumbos and Retardos. Yes to flat taxation for all. Yes to fair and transparent government and courts. Yes to saving for your own future. YES to Ars Technica!

I am roughly of the same general philosophical bent (though I prefer very slow, steady progress towards minimalist governance). But I think it's very important that you are aware of the difference between a nominally flat tax, and a tax curve which is flat in real terms. A nominally flat tax is, in real terms, highly regressive, because what you want to tax flatly is not total income, but disposable income (defined as income minus cost of living).

One mathematically simple way to accomplish this is what is known as a negative income tax, where basically everyone gets taxed flatly, and everyone simply gets a check for that percentage of cost of living, such that a person is only making enough to get by pays no tax.

Matthew Lasar / Matt writes for Ars Technica about media/technology history, intellectual property, the FCC, or the Internet in general. He teaches United States history and politics at the University of California at Santa Cruz.